Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Almost 150 years ago, Charles Darwin knew something that the scientific establishment seems to have forgotten -- something that is being endangered today in the state of Ohio.
In Ohio, high school science students are at risk of being told that they are not allowed to discuss questions and problems that scientists themselves openly debate. While most people understand that science is supposed to consider all of the evidence, these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence -- evidence already freely available in top science publications.
In late 2002, the Ohio Board of Education adopted science education standards that said students should know "how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design. They mandate something much milder. According to the standards, students should know that "scientists may disagree about explanations . . . and interpretations of data" -- including the biological evidence used to support evolutionary theory. If that sounds like basic intellectual freedom, that's because it is.
The Ohio Department of Education has responded by implementing this policy through the development of an innovative curriculum that allows students to evaluate both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.
And that has the American scientific establishment up in arms. Some groups are pressuring the Ohio Board to reverse its decision. The president of the National Academy of Sciences has denounced the "Critical Analysis" lesson -- even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature.
Hard as it may be to believe, prominent scientists want to censor what high school students can read and discuss. It's a story that is upside-down, and it's outrageous. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and others that are supposed to advance science are doing their best to suppress scientific information and stop discussion.
Debates about whether natural selection can generate fundamentally new forms of life, or whether the fossil record supports Darwin's picture of the history of life, would be off-limits. It's a bizarre case of scientists against "critical analysis."
And the irony of all of this is that this was not Charles Darwin's approach. He stated his belief in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Darwin knew that objective science demands free and open inquiry, and while I disagree with Darwin on many things, on this he was absolutely right. And I say what's good enough for scientists themselves, as they debate how we got here, is good enough for high school students.
Contact us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527) to learn more about this issue and about an intelligent design conference we're co-hosting this June.
The Ohio decision is the leading edge of a wedge breaking open the Darwinist stranglehold on science education in this country. The students in Ohio -- and every other state -- deserve intellectual freedom, and they deserve it now.
I think the really ironic thing about the ID'ers attempts to push the new "skeptical" Ohio science curriculum is that it's most likely to absolutely torpedo the ID position, if it's presented fairly. By all means, let's *do* have students examine exactly how and why science arrives at conclusions such as evolution. The students will have a much better understanding of it that way, than they would by the old method of "read and remember this for the test".
Additionally, the new Ohio curriculum actually forces teachers to spend much *more* time on evolution than had previously been the case. Most high school classes only spend a few days on it, at most. Under the new Ohio guidelines, they'll be spending *weeks*.
Lends a whole new meaning to the phrase "they know not what they do".
We care about what he actually meant, not what he can be twisted to try to support.
It's not really about evolution, it's about denying the existance of God.
It never ceases to amaze me how many folks can believe this nonsense. How do you rationalize the existence of countless Christian scientists who still subscribe to evolution? That sort of throws a wrench into your tidy little persecution theory, doesn't it?
Many big words, so you may put your little stepping stones all together in whatever order and imagine whatever you wish, but SAYING it happened in such a manner in no way proves that it did!
It's merely ID re-packaged with a layer of scientific jargon added.
Heck, I've been tempted to write a few myself. After debating this topic for a few decades, I know what buttons the creationists like to have pushed, and I think I could do it pretty well.
I nominate this for Typo Of The Week.
You can't answer the question? What kind of creationist are you?
Besides a pretty typical one, I mean.
Critical analysis of evolution has absolutely nothing to with the creationist/ID position. Why do you evo-reactionaries have such a hard understanding it. Finding flows in evolution does not then support the creationist/ID position. Heck, if it was proved that evolution was entirely false – that would not support the creationist/ID position; it would just disprove evolution (and I not implying that is happening). The point is simple – critical analysis of one theory can not be used as supporting evidence for another theory (per se).
BTW: The Creationist/ID position is not taught in schools so your point in rendered null and void.
Good, then you're in the same company as the countless Christian scientists who accept evolution.
I know that evolution does not explain the origins of life and I also know that evolution is not time plus chance.
This seems unclear. Could you clarify these points, please?
Yawn. This old argument is so threadbare. Find me a machine that mates and exhanges DNA and is subject to mutation, and maybe this argument might have some value.
Good to see Colson going over all of the talking points, trying with sophestry to prove that scientists can't possibly teach science unless they consider the latest evidence from family.org that "proves" the Earth is just 6000 years old, flat, and that the dinosaurs were actually just put there by God to confuse us trusting humans.
Idiot. No...Idiots. There's more than one in this story.
True mark of an 'Evolutionist'
Reading too much into quote snippets taken out of context -- the true mark of a creationist.
I agree completely! However, as part of a PR campaign to spread FUD about evolution, pointing out discredited, and in some cases vacuous, arguments against evolution is designed preciesly to push the students into the arms of ID'ers & traditional creationists. (The ID'ers don't really care who they turn to - the Discovery Institute's long term goal is to make creationism a Big Tent.)
Your logic is extremely flawed and not well thought out.
The article speaks of critical analysis - what you presented in not analysis - it is a proclimation of certitude(2+2=5)
If this is your attitude about toward critical analysis, I hope your moniker is just for fun because if not you could be sued for malpractice. Is "Right Wing Professor" actually implying the theory of evolution has the same amount of certainty as 2+2=4?
You're right. I am certain 2+2 is not equal to 5. You aren't?
If this is your attitude about toward critical analysis, I hope your moniker is just for fun because if not you could be sued for malpractice
Are you speaking in your capacity as a lawyer, or as a scientist?
Is "Right Wing Professor" actually implying the theory of evolution has the same amount of certainty as 2+2=4?
Comparable, yes.
Technology Connections:
Have students use the Internet to search for resources on evolutionary biology.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org
http://www.arn.org
http://www.objectivityinscience.org
http://www.origins.org
http://genetics.nbii.gov
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.htmlAccess the Web site for student research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, at http://set.lanl.gov, for guidelines to the Socratic Method. From the homepage, navigate to Programs, and then Critical Issues Forum.
Within that recommended list, the only links that take the student to webpages that deal with "critical analyses of evolution" are ARN, ObjectivityInScience.org, and Origins.org. Can you look me in the eye, and with a straight face tell me that these sites are representative of the kinds of arguments that real, working biologists are making against aspects of evolutionary theory? Do you really believe that these sites are offering the students critical analyses of evolution, in the best sense of that term? Pedagogically speaking, would the students be well-served to be encouraged to go to those sites and study their arguments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.